You are here: / / FATHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ABSENT...

FATHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ABSENT A FULL HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition for sole custody should not have been granted absent a full hearing:

By “Agreed Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship” (hereinafter the Texas custody order) dated October 4, 2016, which was so-ordered by the District Court, Harris County, Texas, the parties agreed to be appointed “Joint Managing Conservators” of their child, and the father was granted the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence within Westchester County, New York, or any contiguous county.

Less than two months later, on November 16, 2016, the father filed a petition in the Family Court, Westchester County, to modify the Texas custody order, inter alia, so as to award him sole custody of the child. The mother opposed the petition. Over 21 months, the parties made eight formal appearances in Family Court in connection with the father’s petition. The court never conducted an evidentiary hearing on the father’s petition, with the exception of taking the partial testimony of one nonparty witness. By order dated September 25, 2018, over the mother’s objection and request for an evidentiary hearing, the court, inter alia, granted the father’s petition to the extent of awarding him sole legal custody of the child. The mother appeals. We reverse.

Custody determinations should ” [g]enerally’ be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'”  … . “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … . Here, the record does not demonstrate the absence of unresolved factual issues so as to render a custody hearing unnecessary … . Matter of Salvi v Salvi, 2019 NY Slip Op 09272, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS SPEEDING AT THE TIME HE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR, WENT DOWN AN EMBANKMENT AND STRUCK A TREE, KILLING A PASSENGER, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “DANGEROUS SPEEDING;” THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND RECKLESS DRIVING CHARGES; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE GRANTING THE BANK’S MOTION FOR AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF SERVICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT AVERRED THE ADDRESS LISTED ON THE MORTGAGE WAS CORRECT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS REQUIRED TO SHOW STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THE VENUE DESIGNATION IN THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT, SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S WIFE, WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO PLAINTIFF’S USE OF DEFENDANTS’ HOVER BOARD IN DEFENDANTS’ DRIVEWAY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES WAS REPAIR, COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6), OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED (SECOND DEPT).
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE A COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THERE... COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED PLAINTIFF WIFE $25,000 AS AN INTEREST IN HER HUSBAND’S...